A decline in production of transport vehicles and equipment by 8.7 per cent in comparison with the figures registered in the respective period of the preceding year became a specific feature of January of 2005. This development was determined by the glut on the market of cars as a result of the contraction of demand for domestic models. It should be noted that the domestic production of cars declined by 17.7 per cent in comparison with the figures registered in January of 2004, while production at joint ventures increased 1.7 times. The dynamic expansion of imports had a significant impact on the market.

In 2004 and early 2005, the output of consumer goods was supported by the persistence of the positive dynamics of production of food products. In January of 2005, the production of food products including beverages and tobacco grew by 2.2 per cent in comparison with the levels observed in the respective period of the preceding year, while the output of textile products and clothing declined by 6.4 per cent. The permanent crisis of the textile, clothing, leather, and footwear production and expansion of imports determines the further squeezing of domestic producers from the market of nonfood products.

--2004г. 2005, Janury Fig. 1. Changes in the index of manufacturing production as broken down by the types of economic activities in 2004 and in January of 2005, in % of the figures registered in the respective period of the preceding year.

O. I. Izryadnova Regions: Dynamics of Industrial Output This section focuses on the differences among the subjects of the Russian Federation and federal okrugs in terms of the dynamics of industrial output in 2004 as compared with the respective indicators registered in 2003.

In 2004, similarly to the situation observed in previous years, two major factors determining the interregional differences remained the branch structure of industrial output (as usual, the trends of development across individual industries were different, see Table 1) and the proximity to the sales markets. The subjective factors – economic policies pursued by regional authorities, the quality of management at individual enterprises, etc. also were of a certain importance.

Table Indices of industrial output across major industries in 2003 through 2004 (%) Industries 2004 Power engineering 100,3 101,Fuel industry, including 107,1 109,- oil extracting industry 108,6 111,- oil processing industry 102,3 102,- natural gas industry 102,8 105,- coal mining 105,4 108,Ferrous metallurgy 105,0 108,Non-ferrous metallurgy 103,6 106,Chemistry and petro-chemistry 107,4 104,Mechanical engineering and metal working 111,7 109,Wood, woodworking, pulp and paper industry 103,0 101,Industry of construction materials 105,3 106,Light industry 92,5 97,Food industry 104,0 105,Total industry 106,1 107,IOI – index of industrial output Electrical, electronic and optical equipme Production of coke and oil product Manufacturing productio Production of transport vehicles Woodworking and wooden article Textiles and clothing Chemical products Food products Pulp and paper, publishing, and printi Production of machinery and equipme Products of metallurgy As before, the leadership of the Arkhangelsk oblast in the terms of the Industrial Output Index (see Table 2) is to a considerable degree determined by the persisting growth in the extraction of oil in the Nenets AO. Similarly to the situation observed in 2003, the index of industrial output in this autonomous okrug exceeded 140 per cent. The high capacity of the sales markets determined that not only the city of St. Petersburg and the Moscow oblast (shown in the Table 2), but the city of Moscow and the Leningrad oblast remained among the regions demonstrating the most favorable dynamics of industrial output. As concerns the Kaliningrad oblast, similarly to the situation observed in the preceding years the special economic zone treatment permits this region to be included in the number of the RF subjects characterized by the most dynamically developing industry. It should be also noted that among the regions leading in terms of industrial output there are several RF subjects from the Southern federal okrug.

Table Regions demonstrating the most and least favorable industrial output dynamics in 2002 through 2004* IOI, 2004 in IOI, 2004 in % Regions Regions % of 2003 of Arkhangelsk oblast 137,9 Smolensk oblast 99,Republic of Adygeya 133,6 Astrakhan oblast 98,Kaliningrad oblast 125,8 Chita oblast 98,Rostov oblast 117,1 Magadan oblast 96,Republic of Dagestan 116,6 Ulyanovsk oblast 96,Republic of Altai 116,3 Kamchatka oblast 94,Moscow oblast 114,1 Republic of Kalmykia 94,City of St. Petersburg 114,1 Republic of Ingushetia 92,Republic of Mordovia 113,Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) 112,Omsk oblast 112,Tula oblast 112,* without autonomous okrugs In 2004, there were registered 11 regions, where the was observed a decline in industrial output; out of these regions are the autonomous okurgs traditionally characterized by the instable dynamics of industrial output (the Komi Permyak, Ust Orda Buryat, and Koryak autonomous okrugs; the latter demonstrated a decline in industrial output at more than 20 per cent). The fact that three regions situated in the Far East and beyond the Baikal lake (the Magadan, Kamchatka, and Chita oblasts) were registered among outsiders is an additional evidence of the rather depressive economic situation in this macro-region. The decline in industrial output in the Uliyanovsk oblast may be related to the unfavorable political situation observed in this region. Last year, Kalmykiya and Ingushetiya were registered among the regions characterized by a decline in industrial output, while the decrease in the industrial ouput of the Smolensk and Astrakhan oblasts is rather a surprising development than a regularity.

In 2004, there were observed apparent differences in the rates of growth in industrial output across both amounts and volumes of this growth, and across industries and regions. Thus, while the Tyumen oblast demonstrated rather moderate rates of growth in the volumes of its industrial output, the role played by this region in the total national industrial output has significantly increased. This development has to a considerable degree determined the increase in the concentration of industrial production in the top ten of the leading regions. On the contrary, in spite of the high rates of growth in the volumes of industrial output registered in such regions as the city of Moscow, the Moscow oblast, and the city of St. Petersburg, their share in the total national industrial output has declined.

Table Regions leading in terms of their share in the national volume of industrial output in 2003 and 2004* Share in Share in industrial industrial Regions Regions output in output in 2004, in % 2003, in % Tyumen oblast 12,76 Tyumen oblast 11,City of Moscow 5,08 City of Moscow 5,Sverdlovsk oblast 4,22 Sverdlovsk oblast 4,Moscow oblast 4,05 Moscow oblast 4,Samara oblast 4,03 Samara oblast 4,Chelyabinsk oblast 3,95 City of St. Petersburg 3,Republic of Bashkortostan 3,78 Chelyabinsk oblast 3,City of St. Petersburg 3,65 Republic of Tatarstan 3,Republic of Tatarstan 3,64 Krasnoyarsk krai 3,Krasnoyarsk krai 3,27 Republic of Bashkortostan 2,Total top 10 48,43 Total top 10 46,* without autonomous okrugs The same trend (different rates of growth in industrial output in terms of amounts and volumes) is revealed in the course of the analysis of the situation across federal okrugs (see Table 4). The shares of the Ural and Siberian okrugs in the total national amount of industrial output have increased out of proportion with the growth these okrugs demonstrated in terms of volumes of industrial production, while the share of the North West okrug has even declined in spite of the maximum value of its index of industrial output.

Table Characteristics of industrial output across federal okrugs Share in the national industrial output IOI, in % Federal okrugs (in %) 2004 2003 2004 Central federal okrug 108,3 110,5 21,11 22,North West federal okrug 113,4 111,2 12,15 12,Southern federal okrug 108,0 105,9 6,04 6,Privolzhski federal okrug 105,4 107,7 22,52 22,Ural federal okrug 107,9 110,0 21,21 19,Siberian federal okrug 103,8 107,3 12,56 12,Far East federal okrug 107,3 104,7 4,40 4,Russian Federation 106,1 107,0 100,00 100,For the several years running, the North West federal okrug is the leader in terms of the industrial output index. This leading position is explained by the extremely high rates of growth in the regions already indicated above – the Arkhangelsk, Leningrad, and Kaliningrad oblasts, as well as the city of St. Petersburg, while the rates of growth in a number of other RF subjects belonging to this okrug were below the average national indicators. However, the North West federal okrug, as well as the Ural federal okrug (which includes only 6 RF subjects), is an okrug where there are no one region demonstrating a decline in the industrial output.

The Far East federal okrug has not been among the outsiders for the first time in the few recent years; however, as concerns this macro-region, in 2004 a relatively favorable situation there was observed only in Yakutiya (nonferrous metallurgy accounted for the favorable development in this region) and in the Primorski krai. At the same time, either a decline in production or a relatively insignificant growth in industrial output were observed across other oblasts of this okrug, including the Khabarovsk krai.

O. V. Kuznetsova IET Business Survey: Industry in February of In the beginning of the year Russian industry has usually demonstrate good rates of growth and high confidence of forecasts. This year was not an exception. However, the starting intensity of growth in 2005 seems to be more powerful than in preceding years. In the case industry is able to overcome the rapidly increasing need for personnel and capacities, as well as mistrust on the part of the banking sector, the forecasts of the growth in the economy should be revised upward.

One of the main results of 2004 was the persistence of industrial growth, although its intensity declined in comparison with the figures observed last year. According to the appraisals presented by the Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short Term Prognostication (CMASTP), the increase in the volumes of output made 7.0 per cent as compared with 7.8 per cent observed in 2003. A surge was observed across the majority of industries. At the same time, the bulk of growth in output (more than / 3) was based on the increase in output in three industries – mechanical engineering, oil extraction, and food industry. In 2004, the increase in the output of products of mechanical engineering made 11.7 per cent, its contribution in the total growth in industrial output made 31.9 per cent. In 2004, oil industry was second in terms of its contribution in the increase in industrial output (21 per cent). The oil extraction grew by 8.6 per cent in 2004. In terms of the contribution in the increase in the total industrial output, food industry was third in 2004. The respective rates of growth in output in made 8.0 per cent, while the contribution of this industry in the total growth in output made 14 per cent.

After the January holidays, which resulted (using the previous classification of industries) both in deceleration of the rates of increase in demand, and slower rates of growth in output, across Russian industries there was registered a sharp increase in the intensity of expansion of demand and the rates of growth in output. The rates of increase in sales reached 10 balance points in February, what exceeds the results of respective months in the period from 2001 till 2004. The adjustment for the seasonal factors demonstrated that effective demand has not increased at such a rate since October of 2000. In February, sales grew across all industries with the exception of nonferrous metallurgy and the forestry complex. The highest rates of growth were registered in the industry of construction materials (+ per cent), food industry (+ 15 per cent), and mechanical engineering (+ 13 per cent). However, the appraisals of the volumes of output have not radically changed as yet. The share of enterprises satisfied with demand increased by only 1 point (up to 47 per cent) and still is below the best values registered in August through November of 2004. At that time, this indicator was observed at 58 per cent to 60 per cent, what was the best result in the span of 153 surveys.

The intensity of growth in output (as not adjusted for the seasonal factors) has increased to 28 balance points. Such a development has not been registered by surveys since April of 2004, and not once in any February since year 2000. The data adjusted for the seasonal factor demonstrated that the February indicators of 2005 were at record highs in the last 60 months. Output grew across all industries with the exception of nonferrous metallurgy. In February, the leader in terms of the intensity of growth was mechanical engineering (+ 43 per cent) followed by the construction industry (+ 31 per cent), and light industry (+ 29 per cent).

The Russian industry at large still maintains certain excessive capacities as compared with the supposed change in demand. The number of reports “more than necessary” still exceeds the number of reports “not sufficient”. However, in 2004 the balance of evaluations decreased and made 11 per cent, while in 1996 it made 52 per cent and in 1997 through 1998 it was at 48 per cent. According to evaluations of enterprises, on the whole in 2004 the lack of capacities was felt in nonferrous metallurgy (also in ferrous metallurgy at the end of the year) and the forestry complex. Construction industry, food industry, chemistry and petrochemistry are close to the exhaustion of “capacity reserves”. The largest overhang of capacities idle in comparison with demand persists in light industry and electrical power engineering.

The calculations of the balances of evaluations of capacities for major (more exactly, the most massive) evaluations of demand (“normal” and “below norm”) demonstrated that recently Russian industrial enterprises began to feel a lack of available capacities. The average annual balance of evaluations of capacities became negative for the first time in 2004. Therefore, the further industrial growth will apparently result in an increase in the level of demand, which should be evaluated as normal, and respectively in an increase in the lack of capacities able to satisfy this demand.